It's sad when people are blinded by anger and cannot read a sentence properly and understand what is meant. I'll repost here a comment found under the original

It's sad when people are blinded by anger and cannot read a sentence properly and understand what is meant. I'll repost here a comment found under the original source that started this misinterpretation of words: I want to point out a problem: The article claims that Stallman states (…)that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”. I think this is a misinterpretation of what he said; it doesn’t change things for the most part, but what he said is at least understandable, if still fairly awful. His claim, which I don’t really believe is well-founded (but that’s beside the point at this instant) was: (…)the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. (emphasis mine) That is, as far as I understand, he’s stating it’s most likely that Epstein coerced her into the situation, but that she led Minsky to believe it was of her own free will — and, while I (and I suspect many other people) don’t see where Stallman gets that idea, and it isn’t necessarily the case here, I would assume we can all agree that in such a case, the individual wouldn’t be guilty of rape (due to a lack of mens rea, that is, not knowing that the person was being coerced). In short: he never states that an enslaved child could be ‘entirely willing’, merely that someone lacking relevant information could believe an enslaved child was entirely willing (requiring them to neither know the individual is enslaved nor that they are a child — which is possible for someone who’s 17 years old)